Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Emily Lake]

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.

Not a single one of the specific limitations that you have listed is in any way applicable to this situation.

You are mistaken.

Please elaborate? I'm not seeing how any of those 6 items relates to this.

Each one involves an example of speech.

But none of them are relevant to this baker situation, how are they applicable here?

Is it your contention that "use the power of the government to force a person to express something that they devoutly believe to be untrue or which violates their religious beliefs" is a legitimate limit to free speech?

In the case of commerce - which I do not consider a form of speech - absolutely yes.

Okay, consistent... but baffling. How far do you extend this? It's unlikely, sure... but what if the government were to pass a law requiring all businesses to have a sticker on their door (or an icon on their website) proclaiming that abortion is murder, and that failure to display such would result in the business being shut down? What if for some insane reason, the government made it a requirement to get a business license that applicants must sign an affidavit that communism is treason and swearing to report any suspicion of communism to the authorities?

None of those hypotheticals involve actual commercial activity in my view, so they would represent a violation of free speech rights.

I don't know how to fit your view into something I can digest.

 

[Emily Lake]

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

You just agreed with me.

You seem to be missing the point Toni and I are making.

We see compelling someone to come up with ideas they find repugnant to be wrong.

The percentage of business interactions that are of this sort are tiny. The vast majority are stock or an assembly of stock options. Neither of us feels a company should be able to reject such a customer based on irrelevant beliefs.

Actually you do - religious beliefs are irrelevant to website design.

What about a website designer who is jewish, and who specializes in designing websites for parties... do you think they should be compelled by the government to design a website for a someone who is throwing a "down with israel" party?

 

[laughing dog]

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

You just agreed with me.

You seem to be missing the point Toni and I are making.

We see compelling someone to come up with ideas they find repugnant to be wrong.

The percentage of business interactions that are of this sort are tiny. The vast majority are stock or an assembly of stock options. Neither of us feels a company should be able to reject such a customer based on irrelevant beliefs.

Actually you do - religious beliefs are irrelevant to website design.

What about a website designer who is jewish, and who specializes in designing websites for parties... do you think they should be compelled by the government to design a website for a someone who is throwing a "down with israel" party?

Yes, because it is commerce.

 

[laughing dog]

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.

Not a single one of the specific limitations that you have listed is in any way applicable to this situation.

You are mistaken.

Please elaborate? I'm not seeing how any of those 6 items relates to this.

Each one involves an example of speech.

But none of them are relevant to this baker situation, how are they applicable here?

So? They are examples of speech and how far should freedom of speech extend ( or end$,

Is it your contention that "use the power of the government to force a person to express something that they devoutly believe to be untrue or which violates their religious beliefs" is a legitimate limit to free speech?

In the case of commerce - which I do not consider a form of speech - absolutely yes.

Okay, consistent... but baffling. How far do you extend this? It's unlikely, sure... but what if the government were to pass a law requiring all businesses to have a sticker on their door (or an icon on their website) proclaiming that abortion is murder, and that failure to display such would result in the business being shut down? What if for some insane reason, the government made it a requirement to get a business license that applicants must sign an affidavit that communism is treason and swearing to report any suspicion of communism to the authorities?

None of those hypotheticals involve actual commercial activity in my view, so they would represent a violation of free speech rights.

I don't know how to fit your view into something I can digest.
[/QUOTE] ok

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That store needs to sell any product they produce to anyone.

It seems to me the fundamental difference between situations in which arbitrary discrimination has been permitted and those in which it hasn't is that there is to some degree or another a larger provision of services (rather than goods) in the former than in the latter.

Someone making decorated cakes or wedding websites is in less of a position to provide service to everyone who might demand it (due to the amount of time involved) than someone churning out doughnuts...

More than just services, creative services relevant to the point of contention.

Nobody's saying a doctor gets to enforce their morality--while medicine requires a lot of knowledge and thought it normally is not creative. The doctor figures out the problem and then what is the best available option to deal with it. 10 doctors, you should get the same answer 10 times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

SCOTUS has drawn a very bright line protecting religion in many, many different ways, including affirming Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to allow their insurance coverage to include routine gynecological care to female employees. We're all good here boycotting Hobby Lobby, right? We all think that's as far as we can take that particular issue, right?

Actually, there's little support on here for Hobby Lobby. There's no creativity involved there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In this (fictional) case, the conflict is explicit, and is the entire basis of the case itself. If this were a baker who made custom birthday cakes, and they refused to make a birthday cake for a gay guy, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would 100% object to the baker being allowed to do so, even for a custom cake. I would object, because birthdays have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, and there is no religious guideline against birthdays for gay people. Similarly, if the baker made custom wedding cakes, and refused to make a birthday cake for a black couple, I would object - there is no religious guideline prohibiting the marriage of people on the basis of melanin content.

In this specific case, however, there IS a conflict - even if it's one that I think is dumb. There IS a religious guideline against same-sex marriage. So we have a direct conflict between the baker's right to practice their religion free from interference, and the right of the (fictional) gay couple to get married.

Here I somewhat disagree. There is only a conflict if there is something about the design of the cake that's specifically same-sex. It's the nature of the product, not the nature of the customer.

The closest parallel I have is the case years ago where Yaniv* sued a bunch of middle-eastern small business women who refused to wax his balls. He argued that because he identifies as transgender, and these businesses performed pubic waxing for women, they should be forced to wax his balls because transgender is a protected characteristic in Canada. On the other hand, the women were almost exclusively muslim women, whose religion prohibits them from handling the genitals of men other than their husbands in any way. In that situation I sided with the aestheticians. Forcing them to wax Yaniv's balls would be a direct violation of their right to religious observance; having waxed balls or not is not a fundamental requirement for Yaniv to be transgender; there are many other businesses that either specialize in the waxing of male genitals or which were willing to wax his balls. In that situation, Yaniv's desire to force females to handle his junk against their will and in violation of their beliefs was something I did not support - and neither did the Canadian court ultimately.

I don't even see that as parallel. To me gender doesn't even enter into it--they were being asked to provide a service (waxing balls) that they do not provide. Whether the owner of said balls presents as female or not doesn't matter to me.

I have the same core position with this case. Off-the-Shelf wedding cakes are ubiquitously available; other custom wedding cakes that are happy to make same-sex cakes are easily available. Forcing this baker to make a gay wedding cake does not have any affect on gay rights as a whole, but it does violate the baker's rights.

It's only relevant if the cake is gay, not merely the customer. Assuming it is, I see this path as the lesser intrusion--there is no path of no intrusion because we have a conflict in rights.

 

[ZiprHead]

Second, I agree that non-believers should also be protected from being forced to express something in violation of their values or beliefs. I don't think this should be limited to religion. You say it with rolling eyes, but this is something I hold to be extremely important. Nobody should EVER be forced to express a sentiment which violates their belief. Whether that belief is religious or secular, whether the belief is based in fact or fiction is irrelevant. To me, coerced expression is as big a violation as suppression of expression - potentially more so. Being forbidden from expressing one's views and beliefs gives no direct indication of what one believes to be true. It is a non-response. Being forced to express something in opposition of one's views and beliefs gives a false indication, it is a lie.

I guess the concept of non-career enhancing statements is unfamiliar to you.

 

[Gospel]

I appreciate your attention to the highlighted section. However, my main point was to draw attention to the explicit constitutional decree that prohibits the government from enacting laws that favor any particular religion.

By referring to 'whims', I intended to imply that if a person can leverage their religious beliefs to avoid expressing something contrary to their faith, it should be just as permissible for non-believers to exercise a similar right. Anything less would imply a governmental bias towards religious beliefs, which stands in contradiction to the constitutional mandate.

There are a couple of nuances here, and it gets messy in between them.

First, let's talk about the role of religion in the life of a true believer. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks it makes sense at all, I think we can all agree that an orthodox jewish person truly believes that if they eat pork, their eternal soul is damned to hell. They truly believe that eating pork is a sin, and that knowingly and intentionally committing sins will result in eternal punishment. Whether any of us agree that it is true or not isn't directly relevant. To that orthodox jew, forcing them to eat pork is a fundamental violation of their religious beliefs, and the consequence to them is extreme. We could make this more tangible, and talk about the beliefs of sharia muslims with respect to women not showing their hair. I think that's an absurd belief... but a sharia muslim holds it to be deeply and unquestionably true. If I were to walk up to a devout sharia muslim woman on the sidewalk and yank the scarf off of her head, I would be forcing her to violate her relgious beliefs. But in this case, the consequences to her go beyond mere eternal damnation - it could very feasibly result in her being beaten by her husband.

Regardless of whether you or I ascribe to someone else's beliefs, there remain cases where the consequences (real or believed) are manifest and important to the person who does believe.

Second, I agree that non-believers should also be protected from being forced to express something in violation of their values or beliefs. I don't think this should be limited to religion. You say it with rolling eyes, but this is something I hold to be extremely important. Nobody should EVER be forced to express a sentiment which violates their belief. Whether that belief is religious or secular, whether the belief is based in fact or fiction is irrelevant. To me, coerced expression is as big a violation as suppression of expression - potentially more so. Being forbidden from expressing one's views and beliefs gives no direct indication of what one believes to be true. It is a non-response. Being forced to express something in opposition of one's views and beliefs gives a false indication, it is a lie.

Suppressed expression leaves a lot unsaid, and it is a threat to democracy. Coerced expression is even worse, it gives the impression of consensus where none exists.

I appreciate your nuanced approach to this discussion, and your respect for the deeply held beliefs and values of people, regardless of their religious or secular nature. However, I'd like to offer some alternative viewpoints.

Starting with the role of religion, it's crucial to respect the beliefs of all, whether an orthodox Jew, a sharia-following Muslim, or any other belief system. While it's true that imposing actions on them that contravene their beliefs is fundamentally wrong, it's also vital to remember that respect is a two-way street. It's just as important that these belief systems do not impose their rules and values onto others who don't subscribe to the same faith.

Your example of the orthodox Jew's fear of damnation for eating pork or a sharia Muslim woman being forced to uncover her hair underscores this point. However, in a society that values diversity and freedom, it's equally unacceptable for the orthodox Jew to demand that nobody eat pork or for the sharia Muslim woman to require all women to cover their hair. The balance between respecting personal beliefs and upholding societal values of freedom can indeed be messy, but it is a balance we must strive for. A balance anti discrimination legislation was written to strike. When one protected class is permitted to discriminate against another, it undermines the fundamental purpose of anti-discrimination legislation.

On your second point, about the protection from forced expression, I agree that nobody should be coerced into expressing a sentiment that contradicts their beliefs. However, I would argue that it's not always clear what constitutes coercion. For instance, does a public servant who disagrees with gay marriage on religious grounds have the right to refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple? It could be argued that this public servant is being coerced by the government into expressing approval for something they disagree with. However, in a democratic society, it is crucial that public services are provided equally to all, regardless of individual officials' beliefs. In cases like this, it could be argued that there's a difference between personal beliefs and professional duties. The official is not being coerced into expressing personal approval, but rather is being required to perform their professional duty.

Furthermore, you claim that suppressed expression leaves a lot unsaid and is a threat to democracy, and that coerced expression gives the impression of consensus where none exists. I would argue that the real threat to democracy is not so much suppressed or coerced expression, but rather the unwillingness to listen to and understand opposing viewpoints, and the inability to find common ground in the midst of diversity. Segregation would simply exasperate that problem. In fact, division was the source of failure for many empires.

As complex as these nuances are, it's crucial that we continue to grapple with them. Our ability to navigate these tensions reflects our commitment to uphold the values of diversity, tolerance, and freedom that lie at the heart of a democratic society.

Perhaps our perspectives diverge significantly; it seems we may represent distinct interpretations of the American identity and hold different views regarding the purpose of the U.S. Constitution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Gospel]

Clearly we've just witnessed a perfect demonstration of what tardiness to a conversation combined with an impressive lack of knowledge regarding what is a protected class looks like.

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Being gay doesn't give the gay person the right to force a religious person to violate their doctrine and tenets.
Being transgender doesn't give Yaniv the right to force muslim women to handle his balls.

I wish to clarify that my comment was a precise depiction of a post where Nazis were substituted for a protected class in the analogy. This substitution had already been identified and highlighted as such previously in this discussion.

Why not simply acknowledge it's accuracy and move on? Nah, you want to again do that reinforcing thing.

There's a reason it comes up though. It highlights the implicit bias in this discussion. Let's temporarily remove the content, and boil this down to bare bones. The situation is one in which a supplier of a good holds a belief-based opposition to a group of people. What I see happening here - and which has been noted by Toni and Tom as well - is that the sentiment involved is entirely based on the bias toward that specific group of people. You can dress it up as "protected class", but in truth both the supplier and the customer are members of protected classes. So what we have is the elevation of one protected class above another protected class. At the end of the day, whether or not there is a protected class involved does not matter at all. What matters is that you and several others have an emotional response to one group of people, and you are letting that emotional response cloud your thinking. You are perceiving a deep injustice toward one party, while simultaneously ignoring the injustice done to the other party - because you do not like the other party. Because your beliefs conflict with those of the other party.

If we were to alter the relationship, and to present you with a customer that you do not like, a customer whose beliefs are in conflict with your own, you come to a different outcome. This is because your premise is flawed - your reasoning is based on special pleading. Your reasoning is based on the fundamental premise that gay people should not be subjected to treatment they dislike... but that it's acceptable to subject religious patrons to treatment that they dislike.

By introducing a party that every single one of us without reservation despise, it serves to highlight the special pleading involved.

By the way - this is also why I continue to get zero responses to the direct parallel of Yaniv trying to force muslim women to wax his balls. Almost all of us have some degree of sympathy with women of any sort being forced to handle a man's genitals against their will, and the religious beliefs of the women in question only amplifies that. But the actual situation is a direct parallel.

Another reason nazis come up is because it stresses both the creative nature of the work (and the resulting reputational effect of the supplier) and also the sheer non-necessity of the good itself.

Should it be legal for a hospital to deny cancer treatment to a known nazi on the basis of their irrationally hateful beliefs? I would say no, and I think that most of us would. A person's beliefs, no matter how odious we find them, should not be justification for a denial of necessary medical care. Should it be legal for an apartment landlord to deny residence to a known nazi? No, I don't think it should be legal, and I would hope that none of you think it should. Regardless of how much I might despise someone else's beliefs, that should not justify making them homeless.

Should a nightclub be allowed to refuse entry to a person in nazi regalia? Yes, I think they should be allowed to. Becaue nightclubs are not public necessities - they are niceties and are not a basic requirement. Refusing someone entry to a nightclub, for any reason at all, does not produce a materially negative outcome for their lives. Should a baker be allowed to refuse to make a custom cake for a nazi celebration? Yes they should. Not because nazis aren't protected classes, but because nobody actually needs to have a custom cake, and the baker should have the right to refuse custom work for something they have a strong belief-based opposition to.

Should Costco be allowed to refuse to sell an off-the-shelf cake to a nazi? No. It's right there, it's already made, and no specific effort is being put forth on behalf of the nazi, and no implied support can reasonably be inferred.

Your argument thoughtfully unpacks the complexities of discrimination and perceived hierarchy among protected classes. Yet, there are certain nuances that I feel compelled to elucidate further.

To begin with, we must differentiate between denying a service based on a customer's identity or beliefs and refusing a service that compels a provider to support something they fundamentally oppose. If a baker, for instance, refuses to sell a standard cake to someone from the LGBTQ+ community, it's unequivocally discrimination. However, refusing to customize a cake that endorses a message or event they deeply disagree with presents a more layered issue. It's not about the customer's identity, but rather the message being promoted. The baker may even compromise and make a custom cake that lacks the controversial message, but refusing to do so reverts the issue back to discrimination.

Next, the analogy between refusing to bake a cake for a Nazi event and declining the same for a same-sex wedding lacks equivalence. It's crucial to remember that Nazis aren't reviled for their beliefs alone, but because those beliefs have led to catastrophic actions, fostering violence and discrimination. In contrast, being homosexual doesn't inherently harm or threaten others. Drawing an equivalence between the two oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of discrimination and overlooks the real-world consequences and harm stemming from Nazi ideology. Again, Nazis are not a protected class.

Furthermore, in your examples involving hospitals and landlords denying services to Nazis, it appears there's a confusion between actions and beliefs. Regardless of how repugnant we might find certain beliefs, hospitals and landlords should never deny services based on them. If, however, a Nazi's actions, driven by their beliefs, become harmful or disruptive, it becomes justifiable for these institutions to take action. I must express my weariness, though, of resorting to Nazi analogies. It simplifies complex issues and, at my age, it seems indicative of immature thinking.

Finally, touching upon the influence of emotional responses on judgments, I maintain that our ability to empathize – our capacity to perceive and understand the suffering of others – is quintessentially human. Far from clouding judgments, emotions enrich our understanding of intricate issues. Yes, biases exist and can affect our decisions, but it's crucial to continually scrutinize and challenge them to ensure fairness and equity. The fact that some individuals struggle to separate emotions from decision-making does not inherently suggest that emotions obstruct clear judgments.

As with most issues, this one is multifaceted, and cookie-cutter analogies or solutions don't do it justice. Each case warrants individual evaluation, and legal systems should be flexible enough to accommodate these complexities. While it's essential to respect personal beliefs, they must never be exploited as a shield to legitimize discrimination.

 

[Gospel]

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Yet you're demonstrating agitation for one protected class over the other.

Not really. I'm acknowledging that it's not a balanced equation.

If every single baker in the US took this position, and if custom cakes were a necessity for a reasonable quality of life, you'd get a very different answer from me. As it stands, however, we have a conflict between a constitutional right and a legal statute. Furthermore, the legal statute is being applied to a custom cake for a special occasion. Nobody needs a custom cake for any occasion, it's a nicety. Nobody needs cake at all, it's a discretionary item from top to bottom. The fictional gay couple is not being materially harmed by not being able to get a non-necessary discretionary item from this specific baker. And the reality is that there are a multitude of other options available to this fictional gay couple.

Upholding the baker's constitutional right does no material harm to the gay couple.
Upholding the gay couple's legally supported desire to get a special cake from this one specific baker does harm to this baker.
It's an entirely utilitarian approach to balancing the conflicting rights of two people.

In addition, it's the fundamental difference between prohibition and coercion. I am more strongly opposed to coercion than I am to prohibition. There needs to be an extremely compelling justification for coercion, and I simply don't see that this situation is compelling enough.

Indeed, while custom cakes might not constitute a life necessity, their significance in our society extends beyond mere luxury. They serve as symbols of celebration, tradition, and joy during special events. To deny someone a custom cake based on their identity might not have a direct material impact, but it can inflict psychological harm and foster feelings of exclusion or marginalization. Therefore, the harm might not be tangible, but it bears similarities to the psychological distress claimed by the religiously motivated baker.

As for your argument suggesting the hypothetical gay couple can seek services from a variety of other bakers, this might hold true in urban environments but can prove more challenging in less populated or rural areas. More importantly, this line of reasoning could inadvertently validate discriminatory behavior by implying that the onus is on those being discriminated against to seek alternatives. Essentially, it redistributes harm from one party to the other, with your individual bias dictating which party should bear this burden.

Regarding your point on coercion versus prohibition, this dilemma indeed houses complexities as each could lead to perceived harm. The baker might feel coerced into violating their beliefs, while the couple could experience prohibition from accessing a service widely available to others. Balancing these rights poses a formidable challenge, and while I understand your utilitarian viewpoint, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that anti-discrimination laws were built upon the principle of equal treatment for all, regardless of belief or identity. Is a baker discriminated against when a customer requests a message endorsing same-sex marriage? Arguably, no. Is a customer part of a same-sex couple discriminated against when being turned away for it? Undeniably, yes. Is this a First Amendment issue? A detailed examination of the Constitution suggests that the First Amendment's protection extends primarily against governmental intrusion rather than private disputes. So my answer is arguably no.

Finally, we must pay heed to the precedent potentially set by sanctioning such refusals. What starts today with a custom cake could escalate to other services and sectors tomorrow, leading us down a precarious slope towards widespread discrimination. As such, a meticulous evaluation and a more sophisticated understanding of harm are imperative in these discussions.

 

[Gospel]

Second, I agree that non-believers should also be protected from being forced to express something in violation of their values or beliefs. I don't think this should be limited to religion. You say it with rolling eyes

BTW - My eye roll was meant to convey my frustration at having my words consistently misunderstood or having to receive yet another of your unsolicited reaffirming posts.

 

[Gospel]

Allow me to elucidate the distinction between your perspective and mine. I firmly believe that the government presents a compelling argument for safeguarding freedom from discrimination for protected classes in public accommodations. This belief stems not only from the grim history we all share, which provided a strong foundation for legislating anti-discrimination laws, but also from recognizing that this issue is primarily about interactions between citizens rather than a matter solely involving citizens versus the government (which the 1st Amendment is intended for). Indeed, it is a multifaceted concern, and I find myself aligned with the government's compelling stance in this regard. One would have to completely ignore history to draw the conclusion that discrimination is closer to equality or freedom (of speech or not).

I was reading Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) and was really horrified. I was aware that interstate commerce was the wedge used to get the Federal Government into the fight to protect the rights of blacks which were being utterly violated in the South (yes the North too, but to a smaller extents... of sorts). The US Constitution created a massive firewall between Federal and State rights. The 14th Amendment changed that a bit, and by the 1960s, the Federal Government was becoming desperate to stop what was happening in the South.

So they used interstate commerce to justify their intercession into State business. Reading the case and how food crossing state lines, as used at the BBQ in question seems like an egregious overstep of anti-Constitutional authority possible to justify forcing accommodation to all people (I can easily see purists in here arguing against that). From a bare technical legal look, it seems thread thin. But SCOTUS realized what was at stake. From Brown v Board of Education their roll in the Civil Rights movement was massive. These changes weren't coming organically. They needed to be forced. And they were, and we should have been the better for it. Sadly the bitterness is still there.

So when I see a Dobbs or Creative LLC (<--- notice that isn't Lorie Smith) v Elenis picking away at these technicalities, I see the SCOTUS from the 1960/70s as dead. I see this new Bizarro SCOTUS that aims to Plessy v Ferguson the nation back up, caring more for the technicalities of the law instead the heart of it. There is no explicit right to privacy or birth control or marriage or parenting in the Constitution / Bill of Rights. There are a lot of rights not mentioned in the Constitution / Bill of Rights. And despite the 10th Amendment, and the clearly expressed concerns regarding this by the Founding Fathers, I see these cases cutting America back in time, instead of forward.

I share you're worries about our society regressing. I get it. But I think it's important to remember that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents, not static ones. They were designed to be interpreted and adapted as our society changes. So, when you bring up cases like Katzenbach v. McClung, I don't see them as examples of federal overreach. I see them as examples of the Constitution's flexibility. The Founding Fathers knew that the world would change, and they wanted the Constitution to be able to change with it.

The same goes for cases like Dobbs and Creative LLC v. Elenis. The courts' job is to interpret the law, not to make it. If a law is unclear or unjust, it's up to the legislature to fix it. If the courts start trying to legislate from the bench, they'll just end up making things worse.

I agree with you that there are a lot of rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But I think that's a good thing. It means that we have the freedom to expand and protect our rights as we see fit. So, I wouldn't say that these recent rulings are a sign of regression. They're just part of the ongoing process of interpreting and applying the Constitution to our ever-changing world. Progress does not always look like a straight line. In fact, It has historically proven to be a winding road with detours and bumps along the way.

 

[jab]

You specifically used this phrasing:

proposing that a requirement on someone to disobey her religion

And I’m wondering about which part of her religion requires her to start a business. Which commandment is she “disobeying”?

If she lived in a Christian theocracy I’d assume her government would have different rules about discrimination but she doesn’t. She lives in a pluralistic society for which the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices. They also have interest in not infringing on religious exercise but running a website business is not a religious exercise even if performed by a religious person.

What you seem to missing is that there is no requirement that any business deal with all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

You will not find durian in the produce section of any mainstream US supermarket. (You will sometimes find it in ethnic supermarkets.) Is that discrimination? No. Just because they sell produce doesn't mean they have any obligation to sell the produce you want. (Not that you do--if you don't know durian you do not want to try it! Supposedly it tastes delicious--if you can get past the smell. It is the only thing I ever knew my mother to not be willing to taste and she was normally very curious about food.)

Likewise, just because they make wedding websites doesn't mean they have to make same-sex wedding websites.

Note that that already says they shouldn't be compelled to make such a site even before you get into the bit of compelling creativity that the person finds repulsive.

Note that this is different than requiring a company to sell a stock product to all comers.

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don't get to demand a blue version. Likewise, you could open the Not Orange Store where no product has any orange on it and I don't get to demand an orange version.

I wasn't aware that one's colour preference in consumer goods was a protected category under federal or state law anywhere in the USA.

 

[jab]

...
Moreover, there's nothing in your argument explaining why it ought to apply to whatever activities the U.S. government currently defines as businesses but not to others. It simply takes for granted that suppressing bigotry is more important than respecting people's constitutional rights "If you want to run a business", even though the constitution doesn't say its guarantees vanish in a puff of businesshood. When you say "They are right to do so, and the constitution in no way prevents them from doing so.", without offering some sort of justification for the defining line between business and non-business being drawn where it is, your claim amounts to "The government is right to make up a label, attach it to whom it pleases, and disregard the constitutional rights of those so labeled." ...

this isn't about suppressing bigotry, so your argument doesn't quite fit--the issue is about forestalling bigotry from harming Americans' unalienable right to "the pursuit of happiness".

Have it your way -- the previous poster's argument simply takes for granted that forestalling bigotry from harming Americans' unalienable right to "the pursuit of happiness" is more important than respecting people's constitutional rights "If you want to run a business". It's not granted. He and you of course can't be expected to be intimately familiar with the American legal system, but in fact there is no unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness in American law. That saying comes from the Declaration of Independence; it was enacted by the Continental Congress, a body subordinate to the Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Continental Congress was exceeding its authority, just like all the States that passed articles of secession 85 years later. American laws aren't based on the Declaration of Independence but on the Constitution. The DoI has no legal status here -- it was a propaganda piece.

And it is about, you are right, what is and isn't a business in America. I think, but this may be naive, that businesses are pretty clearly defined at the moment, and I don't think in a political system where both major parties are in the pay of corporations, that "business" definitions by the American govt are up for serious change, though with your activist supreme Court, you never know.

No, it isn't about what is and isn't a business in America. It's about what is and isn't Constitutional Law. The opponents of the decision wish it was about what is and isn't a business; they have been trying to make it be about what is and isn't a business; but wishing doesn't make things so and the SC was having none of it. The SC appears to have taken judicial notice of the fact that the Constitution doesn't say First Amendment guarantees vanish in a puff of businesshood.

Thank you for the clariafication, for yourself or your position, which indicates that you have" moved on" a little from your previous position, without acknowledging that you ever at all held it--it's all you opponents' flawed argument, not yours: I quote again: "Moreover, there's nothing in your argument explaining why it ought to apply to whatever activities the U.S. government currently defines as businesses but not to others. It simply takes for granted that suppressing bigotry is more important than respecting people's constitutional rights "If you want to run a business", even though the constitution doesn't say its guarantees vanish in a puff of businesshood. When you say "They are right to do so, and the constitution in no way prevents them from doing so.", without offering some sort of justification for the defining line between business and non-business being drawn where it is, your claim amounts to "The government is right to make up a label, attach it to whom it pleases, and disregard the constitutional rights of those so labeled."

 

[jab]

it seems to me patently ridiculous to propose that burning a flag counts as speech but writing fifty pages of original html does not.

... people with privileged status, wealth, and power have always struggled against the restrictions that the freedoms of other people have put on their own freedom to do whatever they please.

... If you ever find yourself in a position to demand that others express your opinions instead of their own, and get your demand met, you may rest assured that you are the one with the privilege, status and power.

I didn't know that people set up businesses and charged customers fees for burning flags. . . well, I guess I'm not too old to learn new things.

Let's hope you aren't. Why are you implying that my argument implies they do? Do you think the Constitution contains a secret protocol saying all your rights go "ptoing" if you have a paying customer?

Your post seems strangely both disgruntled and assured.

The assuredness comes of having better arguments than the people trying to gut the First Amendment have. The disgruntlement, sorry -- I get fed up when people stand on a corpse and whinge about how their slain enemy has all the power.

Apology accepted. Now that you have acknowledge something you feel the need to apologize for, perhaps you should work on it.
Your assuredness seems based on puffed-up opinion of your arguments, which is indicated by you dismissing the arguments of your fellow posters as "stand[ing] on a corpse and whinge[ing].

 

[jab]

If the director were fired would that violate their first Amendment rights? Apparently so.

Where the heck are you getting that? If the producer doesn't like all those directorial decisions she can fire the director. Producers fire directors all the time. The one who's paying the director's salary can stop, the same as the actors can stop acting if they don't want "to go with it".

Likewise, nothing in the website ruling says anybody has to employ Lorie Smith. Reacting to her refusal to do same-sex weddings by firing her ass has not been held to violate her First Amendment rights. The Colorado government is not her employer.

Actors may be contractually obligated to go with it--compelled speech, compelled creativity--or face legally enforced retribution from the entity with whom they have a contract. Should those contracts be void?

What "legally enforced retribution" are you talking about? You know courts in Common-Law countries aren't in the business of chaining up civil lawsuit defendants and having them flogged until they fulfill their contracts, don't you? If you aren't familiar with the term "specific performance", look it up. When an actor doesn't fulfill his contract, he gets to not fulfill it, and the producer gets to not pay him. Likewise, if Ms. Smith doesn't create what the nonexistent gay couple fictionally wants her to create, the nonexistent gay couple doesn't have to pay her. And if the Colorado government thinks that's insufficient retribution, no one here will sniff when the Colorado government declines to hire her to design its website.

Right, the actor is punished by losing their job, not being paid, and perhaps having future work withheld from them ]for being "difficult".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Suppose the Clearwater city council enacts an ordinance requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit. A Jew claims this infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Judaism it says she must go to the beach. No one is forcing her to recite polytheistic blasphemy. She can make all the sandcastles she wants in her own sandbox. But if she wants to use the city's parking lot then she has to follow the government’s speech policies." refutes her?

This is not a good analogy as this is the government requiring religious speech.

A better analogy might be something like the government imposes a law that all Businesses be open seven days a week. A Jewish business owner then says this infringes on his right to free exercise of his religion because his religion compels him not to work on the Sabbath. Then you can say: “Shadowy Man, are you saying that because his religion does not compel him to have a business that it is ok for the government to just say to him ‘don’t run a business if you don’t like the regulations’?”

In the case of the hypothetical wedding website woman the parallel would then be that her religion compels her to discriminate against gay people even if it doesn’t compel her to run the business. That’s what is being said, yes?

www.bhphotovideo.com

Jewish business, their website obeys the Shabbath. (You can browse and put stuff in your cart, you can't actually check out.)

What's your point? Is there a law preventing them from doing so?

 

[Gospel]

Spoiler: Rant Warning

Analogies can often be more impactful when they encourage introspection rather than focusing solely on the discrimination faced by others. Detachment might prevent people from recognizing the reality of discrimination. This apparent immunity could cause an inadvertent bias, favoring one protected class over another, until they themselves are denied service based on their own attributes or beliefs.

It could be their relationship status, gender, or religious beliefs, including mainstream faiths or even fringe beliefs like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They might not fully grasp the severity of such prejudice until they find themselves denied services, while others unaffected by discrimination pass by with an air of complacency as they coast down the expressway of life unhindered. This personal experience, unfortunately, is often the catalyst for the realization that any form of discrimination is completely unacceptable, reinforcing the importance of empathy in understanding the experiences of others.

As mandated by the U.S. Constitution, we have a social contract, setting forth the rights and responsibilities of citizens in relation to each other and the government. If one lacks enough fundamental respect to accept the implied requirement for compromise we must make to be a part of this republic, it may be worth reconsidering your allegiance, and whether you should continue to pledge the oath or maybe step aside.

The mere notion that baking a cake, or writing a piece of code online could be deemed as an excessive request worthy of discarding your oath is disheartening. If such a small act of service is too much to ask, then I'd like to remind you of the sacrifices made by many people who gave their lives to do just that. Serve.

The absence of personal experience is often deemed inadequate in almost all subjects of discussion, seems discrimination has the notable exception.

Having expressed my concerns, I'd now like to shift the conversation toward finding potential solutions. Specifically, I'm interested in discussing what compromises could look like. I believe it's important to explore practical solutions that both parties involved in these issues can use to minimize harm to all involved. I am genuinely curious and eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Any takers? I previously suggested a potential solution for the baker issue. The couple could opt to accept a custom cake without a personalized message. As a compromise, the baker would ensure they do not deny custom services to same-sex couples. This way, both parties make adjustments, fostering a more inclusive environment.

 

[Elixir]

The couple could opt to accept a custom cake without a personalized message. As a compromise, the baker would ensure they do not deny custom services to same-sex couples. This way, both parties make adjustments, fostering a more inclusive environment.

I feel like both parties should be sent to time out for quarreling.
There HAS to be something that can more clearly illustrate whatever the actual problem might be.